Terry:

I'll nort eat crow, I have already stated that I consider you and anyone else to be just as much in violation of the Ru;es as the contributor. Sorry, guy and this will change exactly how closely I review the Contributions of thos involved, fair warning, they better be corect.

Skip

I have reviewed the transcripts from the rules chat sessions that produced the current rule. There were 2 separate discussions. The first, with Andy, Rick and myself (and others) considered the part about SRP changes being OK as part of a wider contribution. The second, with Skip, Dan, Hal, Achim (and others) did not consider that concept. This would, I believe, explain the differences in opinion on interpretation of the "intent" of the rule.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
As Unicus has pointed out... intent? Is not in the Rules, James, there is nothing in the Rules as they were written that would even hint at the intent to which you refer. There is only the prohibition, with no exceptions and provisions to do otherwise.

Andy did most of that phase of writing, I still have all the various drafts archived and there is NOTHING in any of them that would give you that intent, james. Sorry to act like Unicus, but them are the facts, mi amigo, and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

There have been posts in this thread regarding the intent. I looked it up to see what we were talking about when we wrote the rule to come up with some information for those who are talking about different intents because it might show why different sides are reading the rule differently.

Don't dismiss intent too much. You've used that before in several of your arguments to support your claims.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I understand, but when I do use you among others wave it off. So now I am waving you off. How do like being skewered on your own petard. Either intent flies or it doesn't and I have been told that it doesn't, but now predictably because you wish to invoke it, it does. ......NOT.

Skip

My comments on intent are usually about how everyone's interpretation of intent differs. This is a case in point.

Then why are you voting yes, james, for something that is clearly not supported by the Rules, and intent is not an issue. Hmmmmmmmm. I promise you had I done it, you would have been all over it, and I would have corrected it and you know it.

Skip

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
As Unicus has pointed out... intent? Is not in the Rules, James, there is nothing in the Rules as they were written that would even hint at the intent to which you refer. There is only the prohibition, with no exceptions and provisions to do otherwise.

Andy did most of that phase of writing, I still have all the various drafts archived and there is NOTHING in any of them that would give you that intent, james. Sorry to act like Unicus, but them are the facts, mi amigo, and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

There have been posts in this thread regarding the intent. I looked it up to see what we were talking about when we wrote the rule to come up with some information for those who are talking about different intents because it might show why different sides are reading the rule differently.

Don't dismiss intent too much. You've used that before in several of your arguments to support your claims.

Intent may have been there at the time, but intent went the way of the dodo when the rule was written.  Reading the rule I can't see ANY wiggle room.  It flat out says NO, and intent has nothing to do with it.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I understand, but when I do use you among others wave it off. So now I am waving you off. How do like being skewered on your own petard. Either intent flies or it doesn't and I have been told that it doesn't, but now predictably because you wish to invoke it, it does. ......NOT.

Skip

Ok, this has gone too far now. If we are going to exchange personal insults, lets get them correct. You cannot be "skewered on your own petard". The phrase is "hoisted by his own own petard". A short explanation:

"A petard was a medieval small bomb used to blow up gates and walls when breaching fortifications."

and

"In medieval and Renaissance siege warfare, a common tactic was to dig a shallow trench close to the enemy gate, and then erect a small hoisting engine that would lift the lit petard out of the trench, swing it up, out, and over to the gate, where it would detonate and (hopefully) breach the gate. It was not impossible, however, that this procedure would go awry, and the engineer lighting the bomb could be snagged in the ropes and lifted out with the petard and consequently blown up. Thus to be 'hoist with his own petar' is to be caught up (and destroyed) by his own plot."

Shakespeare also coined the now proverbial phrase in Hamlet.

"In the following passage, the "letters" refer to instructions (written by his uncle Claudius, the King) to be carried sealed to the King of England, by Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the latter being two schoolfellows of Hamlet. The letters, as Hamlet suspects, contain a death warrant against Hamlet, who will later open and modify them to instead request the execution of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Enginer refers to a military engineer.

There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.

After modifying the letters Hamlet escapes the ship and returns to Denmark. Thus, Hamlet's actual meaning is "cause the bomb maker to be blown up with his own bomb", metaphorically turning the tables on Claudius, whose messengers are killed instead of Hamlet."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard

So no skewering, only hoisting.

This may be the only valuable information in this thread and is my 2 cents worth.

Quoting Gadgeteer:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
.......This may be the only valuable information in this thread and is my 2 cents worth.

If it's only 2 cents worth then I don't think you should contribute to this discussion. 

I heard there is a rule about contributions and one or two cents.........now what was it again